From the author: A. G. Belyaev, NLP practitioner, coach, highly qualified manager (MBA), director of the consulting company "El - Consul" When reprinting, a link to the link is required! War is an integral part of competition, the same struggle of human interests and actions. Carl von Clausewitz In order for us to decide whether competition is good or bad, let's agree on what kind of competition we will consider, or from what point of view. We will not dwell in detail on the meaning of the word “competition” as accepted in biology - the relationship of active competition between individuals of the same or different species for the means of subsistence and conditions for reproduction. According to I. I. Shmalhausen, it is one of the forms of the struggle for existence. Another form is passive competition, i.e. the fight against the unfavorable effects of inanimate environmental factors and with common enemies. Competition (economic meaning) is an antagonistic struggle between private producers for more favorable conditions for the production, sale of goods and for obtaining the highest profits, which from the point of view from the buyer’s point of view, it seems wonderful. In competition, commodity producers must try to “earn the favor” of the consumer by improving quality, reducing product prices, expanding the range, creating new technologies and new goods/services. But this is one side of competition, and its other side - a war where everyone fights against everyone. And in war there are no concepts of morality, spirituality, morality as necessary elements of a person’s personality or his activity. There is only one criterion - efficiency. There are no friends or allies, everyone is enemies. Some enemies are obvious, some are secret or potential. Morality and other spiritual attributes are considered as tools that you must use for your own purposes, but not at all as norms that you are obliged to follow. I propose to consider what is bad about competition, namely, war is an integral part of it when it begins within you. ..Let me tell you the following metaphor, which by analogy will easily clarify for you a complex section of modern psychology and psychotherapy. Imagine a large (very large!) factory for the production of something (no matter what). Its director - as it should be in a market economy - deals with external problems: marketing, sales, finance and relationships - with numerous partners and contractors. This takes away all his working time without exception, and therefore he delegated the actual management of production, as well as the solution of all other internal problems, to the appropriate services and divisions, which act independently and independently of this director himself. For the time being, everything is going well at this enterprise - the director successfully solves problems outside the plant, and services and departments independently cope with numerous internal troubles. But one fine (more precisely, sad) day, the director notices that his native plant is clearly “not feeling well.” The rhythm of production has decreased, equipment downtime has increased, defects have started, etc. Naturally, he has to distract himself from “foreign policy” and turn his commanding gaze to “domestic politics.” To begin with, he looks for the service or division “guilty” of the enterprise’s “illness” - himself or with the help of hired consultants. Then he calls the manager or representatives of this very service/division “on the carpet” and methodically (in our example, this is a modern director who knows first-hand what management psychology is) begins to find out the reasons for the failure. And he learns with amazement that this failure is, as it were, planned, since in the absence of a director’s pointing finger or a master’s eye, the service or division decided (decided) that it was necessary to act in exactly this way, guaranteeing failures. Out of thoughtlessness or due to lack of information. Or even out of evil - good intent - in order to draw the attention of a highbosses on their problems or express disagreement with his foreign policy. Previously, it was possible to solve such a problem with strong-willed pressure, but now, if you press hard enough, they respond with a strike or a hunger strike - as they say, it will cost themselves more. You have to negotiate - explain, persuade or persuade people from the service or unit in order to achieve agreement. Solve internal problems of this, as it turned out, a very important part of your enterprise. Or even capitulate and change foreign policy to please her. But what can you do: if you don’t solve this seemingly private problem, the plant will cease to exist (although sometimes that’s the case), but in any case, it’s not worth the fat, but I wish I could live... Now imagine a very simple thing. That the director is you yourself (more precisely, your conscious “I”, your mind). The plant is your body. And the services and departments of the plant are separate parts of your psyche that are responsible for certain forms of behavior. They do this as if automatically - but only for our own consciousness and only when the part reaches “maturity”. Remember how once upon a time, a long time ago, you learned to write or (later memory) drive a car. It required enormous, conscious attention on your part. How difficult it was to simultaneously depress the clutch, release the gas, simultaneously change the speed - and discover that during the time while you were distracted by all these actions, the car completely independently drove away to a place completely different from where it was supposed to go according to the original plan. But then you learned to write or drive and now you do either (or both) automatically. Because a part has formed in your unconscious that has taken over the reins of this action. Smart, stubborn and with a character that may not at all match yours (I assume that you know many respectable and sedate fathers of families who unconsciously turn into desperate reckless drivers behind the wheel). Now you understand that internal competition (aka war, it same disease), can be automatically supported by some part, which, either for one reason or another, considered it necessary and “correct” (or secondary beneficial). Or in such an unpleasant for you, but very effective way, I decided to inform you that you are doing something not quite right or even completely wrong? An example of the result of the work done. Petr Petrovich visited me on the recommendation of his attending physician. The problem he came with was clearly not a common one. Pyotr Petrovich had been tormented by the feeling of a lump in his throat for two years now. A lump that refused to be swallowed. I asked Pyotr Petrovich to describe this lump in as much detail as possible - its size, shape, color, density, consistency, etc. And when this description was completed, he suggested that the client mentally, as it were, transplant this lump onto the chair standing in front of him (the client). This instruction confused Pyotr Petrovich a little, but he managed. And then, having made sure that the client really “sees” the lump on the chair in front of him, I suggested that Pyotr Petrovich say “hello” to this part of himself and hear its response - not necessarily in verbal form. The lump behaved quite friendly and Pyotr Petrovich heard from him reply “Hello.” It is very important to receive this first answer to your question - this means that the dialogue with the part has begun and can be successfully continued. However, this answer can not only “sound,” but also “be seen,” “felt,” and even “read.” Next, I asked the client to ask the lump three questions in sequence: “Why did you appear?” “What do you want?” and “Why do you need this?” And the “moment of truth” came. Stammering and looking at the empty chair as if at a really present interlocutor, the client told me what his part told him. It turned out that this lump did not appear by chance two years ago, since it was then that, due to a major professional failure, Pyotr Petrovich decided to put an end to his career and devote himself entirely to his family. That this is his decision, it seems, is not...